The "appeal" upheld the university's decision

Failure of a master's student who took the exam with an electronic watch and a phone

The Al-Ain Court of Appeal upheld a judgment of the Court of First Instance rejecting the cancellation of a university’s decision to drop a master’s student in one of the subjects, for violating the examination policy and rules by introducing an electronic watch and a mobile phone in the operating mode to the examination room, and the court ruled rejecting the appeal and upholding the appealed judgment.

In the details, a master's student filed a lawsuit against a university where he was studying, demanding the cancellation of the university’s decision to drop him in a course and consider it as if it was not with the consequent effects, and obligate the university to pay him compensation for all material and moral damages in the amount of 20 thousand dirhams.

He pointed out that he studies the MBA program at the university, and he is regular in studies and examinations, and he attained the highest grades in all subjects except for the financial management subject that the university denied him during the final exam, pointing out that during the exam in the financial management subject he was charged with an offense and accused of cheating And the university issued a decision to drop him in the subject and suspend him from studying in the spring semester.

He stressed that the decision is illegal, against the law and unfair to him, as he did not commit any violation and did not cheat, in addition to the fact that the report of the exam observer is based on probability as long as it is not supported by physical evidence of cheating, which is a matter that materially and morally harms the plaintiff.

The university confirmed that it sent an email before the exams to all students, warning them not to keep cell phones and electronic devices with them in the examination hall, and it has also put together a booklet of the protocols, examination rules, and penalties applied when violating these policies, indicating that the student upon entering the examination hall signed a declaration prohibiting Carrying phones and electronic devices while taking the test under penalty of considering that a violation that may lead to his dismissal from the university.

And she confirmed that it became clear to the observer while the plaintiff was performing the test that the plaintiff wore an electronic watch connected electronically to the mobile phone, and as a result she withdrew the electronic watch from the plaintiff and alerted him to his violation of the electronic integrity policy, which may lead to the withdrawal of the exam paper from him, but the plaintiff did not care for that The alert, and the use of his phone, then the doctor withdrew the phone from him and pulled the examination paper and edited a report on the incident, and then referred it to the Academic Integrity Committee at the university, and legal measures were taken against him.

A court of first instance dismissed the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses and 500 dirhams for attorney fees.

The judgment was not accepted by the plaintiff, so he appealed it and mourned that the appealed judgment was the injustice of his rights and the error in application, indicating that the court of first instance relied in its judgments on the academic integrity policy evidence presented by the university with knowledge, which is no more than artificial evidence by the opponent and in his interest, and that The university did not provide evidence of fraud by using the phone or electronic watch.

The Court of Appeal stated in the merits of the ruling that the appellant inserted an electronic watch and a mobile phone in the operating mode into the examination room and did not take them off and put them in the place designated for them in the hall, which is a flagrant violation of academic integrity policies, indicating that the appellant is proven to be superior in his studies and holds high marks In the rest of the other articles, it is not considered in and of itself evidence that he did not commit the violations that were detected against him, and the court ruled to accept the appeal in form, reject it as a matter, and uphold the appealed ruling, and obligate the appellant to pay the fees and expenses.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news